CRICKET REFORM

CoA asks SC to remove BCCI office bearers, says court order deliberately misinterpreted

vinod-rai-pti [File] CoA chief Vinod Rai | PTI

In what can easily be termed as its most scathing status report so far, the Vinod Rai-led Committee of Administrators alleged that the BCCI misinterpreted the Supreme Court order of July 24, and accusing its office bearers of pre-planned/orchestrated move to ask the cricket board CEO Rahul Johri and all other employees to leave the SGM. 

In what could be termed as the beginning of the end game between the BCCI and the Supreme Court, the CoA also stated that describing the identified issues in SGM as impracticable is “nothing  short of gross abuse and contempt of the top court order. It also questioned the presence of two senior vice presidents— T.C. Mathew and Gautam Roy—given that their posts do not come under office bearers of BCCI. 

The report was submitted on August 15, three days before the Supreme Court special bench led by Chief Justice of India designate Dipak Mishra is set to hear the matter. 

It has recommended removal of current office bearers—acting president C.K. Khanna, acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary and treasurer Anirudh Chowdhry—for failure to implement the reforms despite giving individual undertakings to the SC to implement the same within six months. Citing that the six months have lapsed but reforms are yet to be implemented, the panel said: “It is clear that the current office bearers are not in a position to make good on their undertakings.”

It also accused the current office bearers of demonstrating “scant regard for the directions issued by the CoA and continue to flout the same with impunity.”

Indicating its frustration with the alleged “impudent” attitude of the BCCI to reforms and SC orders as well as the apex court's patient outlook to the reforms process, the CoA warned that “the judgment of the Honourable Court will remain a writ in sand and the implementation of the reforms mandated by the court will never see the light of the day.”

It has requested the SC to direct and empower the CoA to finalise the text of new BCCI constitution and direct registrar of societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act under which BCCI is registered  to give effect to the new constitution.

Regarding the issue of misinterpreting the SC order during the July 26 SGM, the panel report says, “CoA submits that the court's order was completely and deliberately misconstrued by the General Body of the BCCI.” It further said that asking the CEO and administrative staff of BCCI, including legal team, to leave the meeting on the basis that they were not office bearers, was all part of a ploy. CoA said these officials were asked to leave despite CoA's order for them to be present during the SGM. 

The CoA, thereafter, sought explanations from all three office bearers. “The office bearers, instead of reprimanding the constituent members for suggesting BCCI officials including the CEO leave the meeting, did nothing.”

Blasting BCCI for failing to implement most reforms and rather using the SC order to not do so, it stated,  “Accordingly, the proceedings of the SGM held on July 26, 2017 demonstrate an attempt by the constituent  members of the BCCI to mislead this Hon'ble Court by describing fundamental core of reforms mandated by this Hon'ble Court as being impracticable.” It went on to state that the CoA  completely agreed with the view of Justice R.M. Lodha  that “the heart, kidney and lungs are being taken out of these reforms.”

Terming the actions of BCCI members as “wilful disobedience of the SC order, CoA said that this “demonstrates overall resistance to the reforms mandated by this Hon'ble Court.”

It must be noted that the apex court has been very patient with BCCI so far hoping it adopts the Lodha Reforms and even willing to re-look at some reforms which are genuinely difficult to implement. However, the BCCI appears to have taken advantage of the benevolent  attitude of the court, with the reforms process appearing to have come to almost a standstill. 

The CoA has finally accepted that reforms at the BCCI level cannot be implemented unless they are done so also at the state level simultaneously.  Pointing out to the SC that state associations  “have no desire to implement the fundamental core of the reforms”, it said: “This is because the  state associations are aware that once reforms are implemented at the BCCI level, it is only a matter of time  that the state associations will be required to adopt measures related to transparency and accountability, especially in respect to funds they receive from BCCI.”

This was the original stand of the Justice Lodha Committee but the CoA decided to go for a more softer approach which has failed completely with the stubborn cricket officials. 

It points out that more than a month prior to SGM  held on July 26, suggested names of six retired SC   judges to BCCI General Body were given for the post of Ombudsman. No appointment was made at the SGM with the General Body, instead, authorising office bearers to do so. BCCI doesn't have an Ombudsman since September 2016. The panel also pointed out that only 10 state associations have communicated details of their Ombudsman while remaining 27 have not done so far.

Twenty state associations have provided details of their constituent members—those with and without voting rights. Seventeen state units are yet to do so. 

Accusing state associations, barring a few, of stonewalling basic efforts of transparency and good governance, CoA said their motives were obvious. Blaming vested interests in not introducing reforms at state level, the report said, “CoA apprehends that these individuals with vested interests  in maintaining status quo may make changes to the membership of their respective states so as to ensure they continue to remain in control of the same.” 

It has recommended a forensic audit of each state associations' accounts by a committee  led by a retired judge of the Supreme Court and the Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General. 

It said the BCCI has failed to adopt the Conflict of Interest rules provided by CoA more than month before the July 26 SGM. It also accused BCCI of refusal to adopt new Fund Disbursement Policy. It also points out the cost incurred by BCCI presently in form of travel and allowances to honorary office bearers  to discharge their duties. 

This browser settings will not support to add bookmarks programmatically. Please press Ctrl+D or change settings to bookmark this page.
Topics : #BCCI

Related Reading